Solo v. Flagstaff, City of

OCR transcription for search; preserved printed pages are authoritative

Case 3:26-cv-08178-MTL
Document 22 Filed 05/20/26 Page 1 of 9
IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF WEST VIRGINIA
HUNTINGTON DIVISION
RANDOLPH JACK SOLO, Plaintiff,
V. Case No .: 3:25-cv-00452
THE CITY OF FLAGSTAFF, ARIZONA,
Defendant.
PROPOSED FINDINGS AND RECOMMENDATIONS
Pending before the Court are Plaintiff's Motion to Serve Summons and Complaint by Mail, (ECF No. 12); Defendant's Motion to Dismiss pursuant to Rules 12(b)(2), 12(b)(3), 12(b)(5), and 12(b)(6) of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure, (ECF No. 14); Plaintiff's Response and Motion to Move This Case to the District of Arizona, (ECF No. 18); and Plaintiff's Motion to Change Venue from Southern District of West Virginia to District of Arizona, (ECF No. 19). The matter is assigned to the Honorable Robert C. Chambers, United States District Judge, and was referred to the undersigned United States Magistrate Judge by standing order for submission of proposed findings of fact and recommendations for disposition pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1)(B).
For the reasons set forth below, the undersigned FINDS that this Court lacks personal jurisdiction over the Defendant and that venue is improper in this District. The undersigned further FINDS that transfer to the United States District Court for the District of Arizona pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1406(a) is appropriate in the interests of justice. Accordingly, the undersigned respectfully RECOMMENDS that the District
1
AUTHENTICATED U.S. GOVERNMENT INFORMATION GPO

2
Court 	DENY 	Defendant’s Motion to Dismiss, (ECF No. 14), to the extent it seeks outright
dismissal of this action; 	GRANT 	Plaintiff’s motions to transfer venue, (ECF Nos. 18, 19);
DENY AS MOOT 	Plaintiff’s Motion to Serve Summons and Complaint by Mail, (ECF
No. 12); and 	TRANSFER 	this matter to the United States District Court for the District
of Arizona.
I. 	Relevant History
Plaintiff initiated this action on July 17, 2025, by filing a Complaint with a jury
demand and paying the filing fee. (ECF No. 1). On August 29, 2025, Plaintiff filed an
Amendment to Complaint, which appeared to supplement, not supersede, the original.
(ECF No. 5). The Complaint arises from events that allegedly occurred in Flagstaff,
Arizona. (ECF No. 1). Plaintiff alleges that he was issued a ticket for violating a municipal
camping ordinance, failed to appear for a municipal court proceeding, and was later
arrested pursuant to a warrant issued by the Flagstaff Municipal Court. (Id.). Plaintiff
further contends that he was detained in the Coconino County Jail, prosecuted in
municipal court proceedings in Arizona, and repeatedly required by Flagstaff police
officers to move his homeless encampment. (Id.). In addition, Plaintiff asserts that police
officers improperly completed the ticket paperwork and that prosecutors and the
municipal judge acted improperly during the prosecution. (Id.).
Following service of the Complaint, Defendant filed the pending Motion to Dismiss
and memorandum in support pursuant to Rules 12(b)(2), 12(b)(3), 12(b)(5), and 12(b)(6).
(ECF Nos. 14, 15). On April 6, 2026, Plaintiff filed a response opposing dismissal and
requesting that the case be transferred to the District of Arizona. (ECF No. 18). On April
8, 2026, Plaintiff separately filed a Motion to Change Venue from the Southern District
Case 3:26-cv-08178-MTL Document 22 Filed 05/20/26 Page 2 of 9

3
of West Virginia to the District of Arizona. (ECF No. 19). Defendant filed a reply on April
13, 2026. (ECF No. 20). The motions are ripe for disposition.
II. 	Discussion
A. Personal Jurisdiction
Defendant moves to dismiss Plaintiff’s claims pursuant to Rule 12(b)(2) of the
Federal Rules of Civil Procedure, asserting that this Court lacks personal jurisdiction over
it. (ECF Nos. 14, 15). A federal district court may exercise personal jurisdiction over a
nonresident defendant only if “(1) such jurisdiction is authorized by the long-arm statute
of the state in which it sits and (2) application of the long-arm statute is consistent with
the due process clause of the Fourteenth Amendment.” 	Consulting Eng’rs Corp. v.
Geometric Ltd., 561 F.3d 273, 277 (4th Cir. 2009).
Specific jurisdiction depends upon “the relationship among the defendant, the
forum, and the litigation.” 	UMG Recordings, Inc. v. Kurbanov, 963 F.3d 344, 352 (4th
Cir. 2020). The Court considers: “(1) the extent to which the defendant purposefully
availed itself of the privilege of conducting activities in the State; (2) whether the
plaintiffs’ claims arise out of those activities directed at the State; and (3) whether the
exercise of personal jurisdiction would be constitutionally reasonable.” 	Consulting
Eng’rs, 561 F.3d at 278.
Here, the conduct giving rise to Plaintiff’s claims allegedly occurred in Arizona,
although Plaintiff alleges continuing emotional effects while residing in West Virginia. In
the Complaint, Plaintiff alleges that he was issued a ticket for violating a municipal
camping ordinance, failed to appear for a municipal court proceeding, was arrested
pursuant to a warrant issued by the Flagstaff Municipal Court, detained in the Coconino
County Jail, and later prosecuted in municipal court proceedings in Arizona. (ECF No. 1).
Case 3:26-cv-08178-MTL Document 22 Filed 05/20/26 Page 3 of 9

4
Plaintiff further alleges that Flagstaff police officers improperly completed the ticket
paperwork, that prosecutors and the municipal judge acted improperly during the
prosecution, and that police officers repeatedly required him to move his homeless
encampment. (Id.).
Defendant argues, and Plaintiff does not meaningfully dispute, that the Complaint
contains no allegations that Defendant conducted business in West Virginia, supplied
services in West Virginia, committed acts in West Virginia, owned property in West
Virginia, or otherwise purposefully availed itself of the privilege of conducting activities
in this State. (ECF No. 15 at 5–8). Instead, the only alleged connections to West Virginia
are Plaintiff’s residence and his assertion that he continues to experience emotional
effects there from the alleged Arizona conduct. (ECF No. 1).
That connection is insufficient. In 	Walden v. Fiore, the Supreme Court explained
that “the plaintiff cannot be the only link between the defendant and the forum.” 571 U.S.
277, 285 (2014). The proper focus is “the relationship among the defendant, the forum,
and the litigation.” 	Id. 	at 284. “Mere injury to a forum resident is not a sufficient
connection to the forum.” 	Id. 	at 290. The undersigned concludes that Plaintiff has failed
to establish that Defendant has sufficient minimum contacts with West Virginia to permit
the exercise of specific personal jurisdiction consistent with due process.
Accordingly, the undersigned 	FINDS 	that this Court lacks personal jurisdiction
over Defendant.
B. Venue
Defendant also moves to dismiss pursuant to Rule 12(b)(3), asserting that venue is
improper in the Southern District of West Virginia. (ECF Nos. 14, 15). Venue is governed
by 28 U.S.C. § 1391(b), which provides that a civil action may be brought in:
Case 3:26-cv-08178-MTL Document 22 Filed 05/20/26 Page 4 of 9

5
(1) a judicial district in which any defendant resides, if all defendants are residents
of the State in which the district is located;
(2) a judicial district in which a substantial part of the events or omissions giving
rise to the claim occurred; or
(3) if there is no district in which an action may otherwise be brought, any judicial
district in which any defendant is subject to the court’s personal jurisdiction.
The Southern District of West Virginia satisfies none of those provisions. First,
Defendant does not reside in West Virginia. (ECF No. 15 at 7). Second, no substantial
events giving rise to the claims occurred in this District. The alleged citation, arrest
warrant, detention, prosecution, and related municipal conduct occurred in Arizona.
(ECF No. 1). Third, § 1391(b)(3) does not apply because this action plainly could have been
brought in the District of Arizona. (ECF No. 15 at 8).
In evaluating venue, courts review “the entire sequence of events underlying the
claim.” 	Mitrano v. Hawes, 377 F.3d 402, 405 (4th Cir. 2004). Courts also look to the
material acts or omissions underlying the claim, not merely to the place where a plaintiff
later feels the effects of those events. 	Oldham v. Pa. State Univ., 507 F. Supp. 3d 637,
646–47 (M.D.N.C. 2020). In this matter, the material acts and omissions alleged in the
Complaint occurred in Arizona. Plaintiff’s residence in West Virginia does not make venue
proper in this District.
Accordingly, the undersigned 	FINDS 	that venue is improper in the Southern
District of West Virginia.
C. Transfer Under 28 U.S.C. § 1406(a)
Having concluded that this Court lacks personal jurisdiction over Defendant and
that venue is improper in this District, the Court must determine whether dismissal or
Case 3:26-cv-08178-MTL Document 22 Filed 05/20/26 Page 5 of 9

6
transfer is appropriate. Pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1406(a), “[t]he district court of a district
in which is filed a case laying venue in the wrong division or district shall dismiss, or if it
be in the interest of justice, transfer such case” to a district in which it could have been
brought.
The Supreme Court has recognized that § 1406(a) was enacted to avoid “the
injustice which had often resulted to plaintiffs from dismissal merely because they had
made erroneous guess[es]” regarding venue. 	Goldlawr, Inc. v. Heiman, 369 U.S. 463, 466
(1962). The statute authorizes transfer “however wrong the plaintiff may have been in
filing his case.” 	Id. 	at 467. The Fourth Circuit likewise construes § 1406(a) broadly,
explaining that the statute authorizes transfer where there exists “any reason which
constitutes an impediment to a decision on the merits in the transferor district but would
not be an impediment in the transferee district.” 	Porter v. Groat, 840 F.2d 255, 258 (4th
Cir. 1988).
Transfer under § 1406(a) remains discretionary. Defendant argues that dismissal
is appropriate because Plaintiff filed this action in West Virginia despite the lack of any
connection between this District and the underlying events, failed to timely serve process,
and failed to meaningfully contest Defendant’s remaining dismissal arguments. (ECF No.
20 at 1–2). Defendant further notes that Plaintiff stated he filed in West Virginia because
he believed “conducting a lawsuit physically in the State of Arizona could be extremely
dangerous to me.” (Id. 	at 2).
The Court recognizes those concerns. Plaintiff filed this action in a district lacking
any meaningful connection to the underlying events. Service also was not completed
within Rule 4(m)’s ninety-day period, and Plaintiff’s motions seeking additional time to
serve were previously denied without prejudice. (ECF Nos. 9 at 2, 20 at 2). Nevertheless,
Case 3:26-cv-08178-MTL Document 22 Filed 05/20/26 Page 6 of 9

7
Plaintiff ultimately effected service upon Defendant, which thereafter appeared and
litigated this matter. (ECF No. 17).
The undersigned finds that the interests of justice favor transfer rather than
outright dismissal. Plaintiff proceeds 	pro se, paid the filing fee, ultimately effected service,
and expressly requested transfer to the forum where the events allegedly occurred. The
District of Arizona appears to be the appropriate forum for this dispute. The alleged
events occurred there, the relevant municipal actors are located there, and the remaining
substantive issues include immunity under Arizona law and merits questions that are best
addressed by the transferee court in the first instance. (ECF No. 15 at 2–4).
This recommendation does not resolve the merits of Plaintiff’s claims, excuse
untimely service, or foreclose Defendant from renewing any appropriate defenses in the
transferee court. Rather, it recognizes that the jurisdictional and venue defects in this
Court are impediments to adjudication here and that § 1406(a) permits transfer to the
district where the action could have been brought. 	See 	Goldlawr, 369 U.S. at 466–67;
Porter, 840 F.2d at 258.
Accordingly, the undersigned 	FINDS 	that transfer to the United States District
Court for the District of Arizona pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1406(a) is appropriate.
III. 	Proposal and Recommendations
For the reasons set forth above, the undersigned respectfully 	RECOMMENDS
that the District Court:
1. 	DENY AS MOOT 	Plaintiff’s Motion to Serve Summons and Complaint by
Mail, (ECF No. 12);
2. 	DENY 	Defendant’s Motion to Dismiss, (ECF No. 14), to the extent it seeks
outright dismissal of this action;
Case 3:26-cv-08178-MTL Document 22 Filed 05/20/26 Page 7 of 9

8
3. 	GRANT 	Plaintiff’s Motion to Move This Case to the District of Arizona, (ECF
No. 18);
4. 	GRANT 	Plaintiff’s Motion to Change Venue from Southern District of West
Virginia to District of Arizona, (ECF No. 19);
5. 	TRANSFER 	this civil action to the United States District Court for the
District of Arizona pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1406(a); and
6. 	REMOVE 	this matter from the docket of this Court.
The parties are notified that this “Proposed Findings and Recommendations” is
hereby 	FILED, and a copy will be submitted to the Honorable Robert C. Chambers,
United States District Judge. Pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1)(B) and Rules 6(d) and
72(b), Federal Rules of Civil Procedure, the parties shall have fourteen days (filing of
objections) and three days (if received by mail) from the date of filing this “Proposed
Findings and Recommendations” within which to file with the Clerk of this Court, specific
written 	objections 	identifying 	the 	portions 	of 	the 	“Proposed 	Findings 	and
Recommendations” to which objection is made and the basis of such objection. Extension
of this time period may be granted by Judge Chambers for good cause shown.
Failure to file written objections as set forth above shall constitute a waiver of 	de
novo 	review by the District Court and a waiver of appellate review by the Circuit Court of
Appeals. 	Snyder v. Ridenour, 889 F.2d 1363 (4th Cir. 1989); 	Thomas v. Arn, 474 U.S. 140
(1985); 	Wright v. Collins, 766 F.2d 841 (4th Cir. 1985); 	United States v. Schronce, 727
F.2d 91 (4th Cir. 1984). Copies of such objections shall be provided to the opposing
parties, Judge Chambers, and the undersigned.
The 	Clerk 	is 	instructed 	to 	provide 	a 	copy 	of 	this 	“Proposed 	Findings 	and
Recommendations” to counsel of record and any unrepresented parties.
Case 3:26-cv-08178-MTL Document 22 Filed 05/20/26 Page 8 of 9

Case 3:26-cv-08178-MTL Document 22
Filed 05/20/26 Page 9 of 9
FILED: May 20, 2026
DISTRICT
SOUTHERN
ICT COURT VINIOXIA
RN DISTRICT
EST V
Joseph K. Reeder United States Magistrate Judge
9